Coastal cutthroat trout in the Coastal cutthroat trout in the Lower Columbia River: Lower Columbia River:

migration and residency in two tributariesmigration and residency in two tributaries

Joseph ZydlewskiJoseph Zydlewski11Jeffrey JohnsonJeffrey JohnsonGayle Gayle BarbinBarbin ZydlewskiZydlewski22

US Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia Fisheries Program US Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia Fisheries Program Office, 1211 SE Cardinal Court, Suite 100, Vancouver, WA Office, 1211 SE Cardinal Court, Suite 100, Vancouver, WA

9868398683

11Currently: US Geological Survey Currently: US Geological Survey –– Biological Resources Division, Maine Biological Resources Division, Maine Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, OronoOrono, ME 04469, ME 04469

22Currently: University of Maine, School of Marine Sciences, Currently: University of Maine, School of Marine Sciences, OronoOrono, ME 04469, ME 04469

ObjectiveObjective

Describe tributary use and migration Describe tributary use and migration timing using PIT tag technologytiming using PIT tag technology

Describe of migrant and resident Describe of migrant and resident behaviorsbehaviorsCompare migrant and resident growthCompare migrant and resident growth

Chinook River

Abernathy Creek

Lower Columbia River

Collection and TaggingCollection and Tagging

Migration detectionMigration detection

Migration/RecaptureMigration/Recapture

Recapturing Recapturing Electrofishing/PITpackingElectrofishing/PITpacking

Abernathy Creek

Screwtrap

Upper PIT tag arrayLower PIT tag array

Summer PITpack

Recaptures and Detections2001 - 2005

Fall Electrofishing200120022003

Chinook River Recaptures and Detections2003 - 2005

Fall Electrofishing20022003

Hatchery Screwtrap

Mouth Screwtrap

Upper PIT tag array

Lower PIT tag array

Classifying migrants and residentsClassifying migrants and residents

Migrants:detected at array

Note: those detected within 30 d of tagging and not observed again = unknown (particularly Chinook River)

captured in screwtrap

Residents:recaptured electrofishingdetected with PITpack

Abernathy Creek

MigrantsMigrants123 detections at Upper array123 detections at Upper array110 detections at Lower array110 detections at Lower array33 recaptures at Screw Trap33 recaptures at Screw Trap

Upper Array

0

10

20

30

Tagged in 2001Tagged in 2002Tagged in 2003

Lower Array

Num

ber

0

10

20

30

Screw Trap

Oct 01 Apr 02 Oct 02 Apr 03 Oct 03 Apr 04 Oct 04 Apr 05

0

10

20

30

Chinook River

Residents:Residents:

39 Electrofishing recaps39 Electrofishing recaps

MigrantsMigrants343 detections at Upper array343 detections at Upper array132 detections at Lower array132 detections at Lower array83 recaptures at Screw Traps83 recaptures at Screw Traps

U pper a rray

0

20

40

60

80

100

T agged in 2002T agged in 2003

Low er a rray

0

20

40

60

80

H atche ry S crew T rap

05

101520

M ou th S crew T rap

O ct 01 A pr 02 O ct 02 A pr 03 O ct 03 A pr 04 O ct 04 A pr 05

0

5

10

15

20

Chinook AbernathyChinook Abernathy9%

19%

72%

44%

4%

52%52%

4%

44%

72%

19%

9%

Number tagged1,496

Fall 2001: 4692002: 4942003: 533

Number tagged754

Fall 2002: 4442003: 310

Unknown

Unknown

Migrant

Migrant

Resident

Resident

Abernathy Creek:

Higher proportion of residents observed

upstream

2001

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.05 21 89

2002

Prop

ortio

n

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.04 19 110

2003

R hLower Middle Upper

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.011 33 111

MigrantResident

Chinook River:

Higher proportion of residents observed

upstream

2002

X Data

l m u0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Col 29 Col 30

2003

Reach

Lower Middle Upper

Prop

ortio

n

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

MigrantResident

51 109

31 40 68

61

Age 1+

Tagging

Migrant (1 or Migrant (1 or 2 years later)2 years later)

PIT antennaPIT antennaScrew trapScrew trap

No observationsNo observations

ResidentResidentEE--fishingfishingPIT packPIT pack

Abernathy Creek

MIG1 MIG2 RES

Fork

Len

gth

- mm

0

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

n = 42

n = 8

n = 42

a

a,b

b

Abernathy Chinook River

MIG1 MIG2 RES

Fork

Len

gth

- mm

0

100

105

110

115

120

125

130n = 157

n = 13

n = 11

aa,b

b

RetroRetro--Analysis: Analysis: Length at Length at ageage--11

Abernathy Abernathy -- Migrant and Resident Migrant and Resident Growth Rates Growth Rates -- WeightWeight

Classifying age 1 Migrants by year of Classifying age 1 Migrants by year of movement movement

MIG1: 0.335 ± 0.034 (n = 7)*MIG1: 0.335 ± 0.034 (n = 7)*MIG2: 0.262 ± 0.065 (n = 2)MIG2: 0.262 ± 0.065 (n = 2)RES: 0.222 ± 0.014 (n = 45)RES: 0.222 ± 0.014 (n = 45)

CHINOOK CHINOOK -- Migrant and Resident Migrant and Resident Growth Rates Growth Rates -- WeightWeight

Classifying Migrants by year of movementClassifying Migrants by year of movementMIG1: 0.447 ± 0.020 (n = 35)*MIG1: 0.447 ± 0.020 (n = 35)*MIG2: 0.276 ± 0.049 (n = 14)MIG2: 0.276 ± 0.049 (n = 14)RES: 0.339 ± 0.041 (n = 11)RES: 0.339 ± 0.041 (n = 11)

SummarySummary

Evidence of both residence and migratory life Evidence of both residence and migratory life history strategieshistory strategies

Proportion of residents increases in upper reachesProportion of residents increases in upper reaches

Fish that will migrate at age 1+ are larger at Fish that will migrate at age 1+ are larger at tagging and have faster growth rates than those tagging and have faster growth rates than those that will remain another year or remain as that will remain another year or remain as residentsresidents

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsUS Army Corps of Engineers, Bonneville Power US Army Corps of Engineers, Bonneville Power AdministrationAdministrationUSFWS CRFPO; John USFWS CRFPO; John BrunzellBrunzell, Jeff , Jeff HogleHogleWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife; Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; Pat Pat HanrattyHanratty, Steve , Steve WolthausenWolthausen, Bryan Blazer, Bryan BlazerSea Resources; Robert Warren, Garth GaleSea Resources; Robert Warren, Garth GaleUSFWS Abernathy Behavioral Physiology USFWS Abernathy Behavioral Physiology Crew; Dee McClanahan, Crew; Dee McClanahan, ChristianeChristiane Winter, Winter, Megan Hill, Bill Gale, Ben Kennedy, Casey Megan Hill, Bill Gale, Ben Kennedy, Casey Jackson, Jim Jackson, Jim GasvodaGasvodaLandowner: Robert DavisLandowner: Robert Davis

The EndThe End

2001

X Data

0 1 2 3 40.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2migrant resident

2002

0 1 2 3 4

Prop

ortio

n

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

2003

l m u0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

4 18 55

4 15 77

9 20 62

Abernathy Creekmay want to use for discussion purposes

Mover dataWithout PITpack:

10% migrants8% residents

82% unknown

RetroRetro--Analysis: Length at ageAnalysis: Length at age--11

p > 0.05117 – MIG2(±3.7) n = 13

125 – RES(±3.6) n = 11

p > 0.05125 – RES(±3.6) n = 11

129 - MIG 1(±1.0) n = 157

p < 0.05117 – MIG2(±3.7) n = 13

129 - MIG 1(±1.0) n = 157

Chinook River

p > 0.05111 – MIG2(±7.3) n = 8

120 – RES(±4.8) n = 42

p > 0.05120 – RES(±4.8) n = 42

127 – MIG1(±4.3) n = 42

p < 0.05111 – MIG2(±7.3) n = 8

127 – MIG1(±4.3) n = 42

Abernathy Creek

pFork LengthMedian (25%, 75%)

Fork LengthMedian (25%, 75%)

Tributary

Length at AgeLength at Age

Age

no age 0+ 1+ 2+ 3+

Fork

Len

gth

- mm

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2001 2002 2003

Age

no age 0+ 1+ 2+ 3+

Fork

Len

gth

- mm

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2001 20022003

Abernathy Creek Chinook River